Steve Rock and Ann Whelan Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Office of Research and Development
Phytoremediation Along the
Indiana Harbor Canal
Canal system overview.
Lake George Branch
Lake Michigan
IHC
IHC
Columbus Avenue
Sheen on Federal IHC facing east
Oiled turtle
Oiled Turtle, IHC
This is the second largest flyway in the continental U.S. Many migratory birds stop off at the tip of Lake Michigan and this is what they find.
Great White Egret Pair on Bank of IHC
There is still substantial contamination coming from ground water
More Mousse
There is also unaccounted for oil. • Sediments? • Re-oiling from the Shoreline? • Groundwater? • Illegal dumping?
Dead Carp, Heavy Sheen on Oiled Canal Bank
Overall Goals for the Canal
• Containment or stabilization of oil • Oil removal through many means
including degradation • Establishment or restoration of habitat
Programs to Reach Goals • Enforcement (EPA R5) • Natural Resource Damage Assessment
(USF&WS and Indiana Dept. of Env. Management) • Clean-up of hot spots (EPA R5) • Bioremediation (EPA ORD) • Phytoremediation � Survivability (EPA ORD) � Field studies (Sand Creek Consultants, Inc.) � Green house studies (Purdue University)
Planting History at IH
• Recon and sampling Dec. 2001 • Pot studies for plant selection and
planting strategy 1/02 • Initial field planting • Second field planting Spring 03
Spring 02
Reconnaissance We found: Layers Bare stretches of beach Arrowhead, cattails, phragmites 15+% TPH
Description of Study • Phytoremediation is being considered for full-scale
Indiana Harbor clean-up. • Field and greenhouse studies were funded for feasibility
investigation. • Target plants were switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.),
poplar (Populus sargentii), carex (Carex stricta), Eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), willow (Salix exigua), and arrowhead (Sagitaria latifolia).
• Plant growth, biomass, microbial populations, andcontaminant concentrations were monitored.
• Field plots were established in the June of 2002 andmonitored until September, 2003.
• The greenhouse study was conducted from September,2002 to October, 2003.
Planting Plot REP
1
Pur
REP 3
REP 4
REP 2
Pur
Pur
Pur
Pur
MT
REP 6
REP 5
CA
NA
LIndustrial
Land Use
8’ fence (deer and beaver)
ROW 1 2 3 4 5
20 trees per row 100 trees per rep
W W P P P Species
Planting: Cuttings
• 10” cuttings in 2002
• 36” cuttings in 2003
Poplar and Willow
Oct 25, 2002 (21 weeks)
Qualitative Root Evaluation
Dense root mass concentrated in oily soil horizon
Qualitative Root Evaluation
Indiana Harbor Field Site - 2002
2003 Planting 36” cuttings No mulch, No holes, No fence Slow release fertilizer ½ mile of canal bank
---------- ---------
Purdue University Plot Plan Gate
SCUE
CESU
ESUC
UECS
UECS
SCUE
CSEU
EUSC
Plot A Plot B Plot C Plot D
Canal
U = Unvegetated S = Switchgrass E = Eastern gamagrass C = Carex stricta
Field Site – Initial Planting
Indiana Harbor Greenhouse Design
P C U P S A A W
E W U C E S E C W E C P
A S W A U P S U
Rep 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 3 Rep. 4
U=Unvegetated Control S=Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) P=Poplar (Populus sargentii) C=Carex (Carex stricta) E=Eastern Gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) W=Willow (Salix exigua) A=Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)
Greenhouse Study – Eastern Gama Grass
Greenhouse Study – TPH Analysis
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
0 3
Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated
Months 1
Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Anthracene)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 13
Time (months)
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated
Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Pyrene)
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
0 13
Time (months)
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated
Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Chrysene)
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
450.00
500.00
0 13
Time (months)
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated
Greenhouse Study – PAH Analysis (Benzo[a]pyrene)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
0 13
Time (months)
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
) Willow Switchgrass Poplar Arrowhead Carex Gamagrass Unvegetated
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
PAH
-dag
rad e
r p o
pula
tions
plots
planted 31,690 29,741 19,670 22,148
non-planted 806 908 1,493 1,515
1-A -B 2-A -B
Field Site – PAH Degraders by MPN (August, 2002)
1 2
Field Site – PAH degaders (MPN)
0.00E+00
2.00E+04
4.00E+04
6.00E+04
8.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.20E+05
1.40E+05
1.60E+05
Sample Identification
MPN
cel
ls p
er G
ram
of D
ry S
oil
MPN 1.11E+05 1.18E+05 2.79E+04 9.01E+04 1.89E+02
Arrowhead Rhizosphere-
affected
Arrowhead Rhizosphere
Carex Rhizosphere-
affected
CarexRhizosphere Non-vegetated
Field Site – Average TPH Analysis
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0 18
Time (months)
Con
cent
ratio
n (m
g/kg
)
Unvegetated Switchgrass Gamagrass Carex
Conclusions • The PAH-degraders are approximately 2–5 orders
of magnitude greater in the rhizosphere and rhizosphere-influenced soil compared to non-vegetated soil.
• Molecular microbiological techniques indicate thatorganisms present in the arrowhead rhizospherehave significant PAH degradation ability.
• In the greenhouse, the plant root interaction withthe soil resulted the following trend:switchgrass>Carex>gama>grass>poplar> willow.
• Arrowhead was difficult to grow in thegreenhouse due to water requirements, limiting theassessment time after establishment.
Conclusions • In the field, Eastern gama grass had the highest
overall shoot biomass of the three plant treatments.
• Switchgrass had the highest percent coverage inthe plots further away from the canal and Carexhad the highest percent coverage in the plotscloser to the canal.
• In the field study, Carex and switchgrass were the best performers in terms of TPHdegradation, and were effective for severalPAHs.
• In the greenhouse study, switchgrass,arrowhead, Carex, and gamagrass were the best performers in terms of TPH degradation, andwere effective for several PAHs.
Conclusions
• Each type of plant works in a different micro environment
• Trees surrounded by grass limit beaver predation, increase hydrologic control, work on oiled ground water
• Grasses work in top 2-3 feet • Arrowhead works at waters edge • Varied planting may work best
Conclusions • Possible to
revegetate areas, will decrease sheen, re-oiling canal
• Beavers will slow tree growth (40% in ‘03)
• Restoration will work slowly but cheaply July 2003